Is there an implied or inevitable genocide lurking in the War on Terror?

Question

If "they" will never stop wanting to kill "us" isn't the only way to win (eliminate the possibility of an attack) to kill all of them?

Is my definition of vicotry too rigid? It is the only one that works based on the rhetoric I've heard over the last six years.

Consider this quuote from Ann Coulter as you answer:

There are thousands of Muslim extremists literally dying to slaughter Americans, and only three proven ways to stop them: , (2) capture them and keep them locked up, or (3) convince them that their cause is lost.

(1) Kill them (the recommended method)

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=61

Too many great answers - can't choose.

Answer 1

according to this administration's logic yes. however what they don't understand is that for every one terrorists we kill or torture..... we create 10 new terrorists. there will always be people in America who hate us...... the goal of the war on terror should be to reduce the number of people who want to kill us!!!!!!!! unfortunately the opposite has been done since 9/11.

sadly the support of the entire world that the USA had on 9/12/01 has been pissed away by the decider

Answer 2

No, not at all. It's a long, long, /long/ way from dropping food on your enemies in Afghanistan, and prosecuting your own people for 'hate crimes against muslems' to committing genocide. Compare the treatment of muslems in America, today, to the treatment of Jews in Germany six years after teh burning of the Reichstaag. The latter is genocide. For that matter compare the treatment of mslems in America today to the treatment of Japanese-Americans in America durring WWII.

It wouldn't be a bad thing, I think, if there was an implied willingness to commit genocide in the War on Terror, as that might actually be enough to convice Islamists that terrorists attacks against America aren't such a great idea. Afterall, there was an implied willingness to commit genocide (Mutual Assured Destruction) in the Cold War, and that kept either side from attacking the other quite effectively.

Where the implied need for genocide comes into the discussion is the 'creating more terrorists than you're killing theory.' You hear this one a lot, particularly in reference to the Iraq war, but, really, anytime anyone dares to stand up to islamic terrorism. The theory is that anytime you so much as speak harshly of muslims in respons to terrorist attacks perpetrated by muslims, you 'create' additional terrorists, more or less at random, from among the 1.2 billion muslems in the world. Were that theory correct, yes, genocide would be the only resolution of the problem.

Answer 3

you may no longer, a minimum of no longer by using militarily could on my own. i'm no longer a pacifist, yet you may no longer win a conflict on what somebody makes a decision to do at any any given 2nd in time. The term "conflict on Terror" is only elementary stupid. i know the form to have a conflict on a rustic, yet how are you able to've a conflict on an action? The "conflict on drugs" is yet another stupid term. The "conflict on XYZ" is in elementary terms a slogan it is difficulty-free to sell to simpletons who have no serious thinking skills. this is only an excuse for GW to get the vast cost selection $ he desires to maintain our militia and private contractors over there. by using the way, I artwork with a woman who has a son there as a contractor that works alongside the warriors networking computers. She stated he makes over 150K for doing the top same element because of the fact the warriors who make approximately 25K. plenty for that LIE that express people make with regard to the indoors maximum sector continuously being plenty greater powerful and espresso in fee than the government. yet, I digress. yet, there is the thank you to get the better hand in this. yet, this is not particularly politically remarkable. and that's by using infiltarating the mosques with spies and insect the crap out of all the places the place the inciters collect. locate out who they are and then 86 'em. additionally, make it so the kin of the guy who blew themselves up has to reimburse the sufferers. And in the event that they could't, they loose each and everything. Their homestead, vehicles, $, their toddlers are taken away to be "re-knowledgeable". additionally, they ought to take the remains of the bomber or terrorist and place them interior the sewer device, so as that they won't get a "proper" burial. finally, they ought to make it a dying sentance crime to sell or glorify the terrorists interior the country of Iraq. do no longer you in elementary terms love the crap that GW placed us in. What a moron. I constructive desire the Republican social gathering can furnish us a greater helpful candidate next time. I bear in mind Hanity asserting how undesirable it may be to get Kerry. nicely, i do no longer see how he could have completed any worse. Infact, I possibly might vote for him if I knew what I do now. All that $ spent could have bailed out social protection possibly many circumstances over.

Answer 4

I wouldn't use Ann Coulter as a primary source on describing a complicated sociopolitical issue such as Islamic terrorism. She tends to simplify things to the most basic level possible, which makes it difficult to deal with the nuanced intricacies that anyone hoping to resolve or survive such matters must deal with.

For one, I question the insistence that "they" will never want to stop killing "us" and the supposition that there is or has ever been two cohesive camps of "they" and "us" in the history of the world. The fact of the matter is that Muslims (and to a lesser extent, Muslim terrorists) are at least as varied in their beliefs, tactics, and worldview as non-Muslims, and trying to treat them as one homogenous evil organization a la KOBRA from GI Joe is extremely dangerous and counterproductive. This means that in my opinion your question is too broad to receive a reasonable answer.

Answer 5

When the consensus of the free world speaks with one voice and stands together, they will be defeated.

Genocide is not necessary, as 90% of Muslims are not fundimentalists, or Jihadists. ( Of course 10% of a Billion Muslims is quite a number of hostiles. ) The 90% has to speak up and denounce the vilolence.

.

Answer 6

Well put. but there's nothing "implied" about it. The religios fanatics, on the right, and their leaders like Coulter--and Bush, don't kid yourself--have been very clear about their intention to kill as many Muslims as possilbe.

Answer 7

Just save the beef,we need B.K burgers millions of them,remember the best burgers are the recommended method,HAIL TO THE KING....chow F.P

Answer 8

You will NEVER "re educate" them...they are FANATICS !

Why waste all that money to keep them locked up ?

Kill em and be done with it, better them die that more Americans be killed like 9-11.

Kill every stinking terrorist !

Answer 9

Interesting question. I think that is the end result of winning the war on terror. Yikes.

Answer 10

I know our enemies think so. As for Coulter, she's a mindless, soulless ****. I can't take her, or her followers seriously.